Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

Page 2 -- September 25, 2003 108 Rezoning-- Developer seeks mixture of sinOe family homes and townhouses Was the project automatically approved because of city inaction? MINNESOTA (7/22/03) -- In 2001, Totlefson entered into a sales contract to buy 103 acres of farmland that was rezoned to single-family residential The 6evetoper intended to construct a rrdxture of 283 single-family homes and townhouse un/ts. The contract included a provision requiting the developer ro obtain city approvals tYr its plans prior to the closing. On April 30, 2002, the developer submitted plans for a development to be called Twin Lakes Crossing. The plans included a request for rezoning the property from R1 single-family to planned unit development (PUT)). In May 2002, BoMman, an officer of the developer, met with the city se- n/or planner to discuss the project's particulars. The planner suggested that the rezonmg request be amended to a request for R3' zoning, which was a newly created designation for townhouses. The rezonmg hearing was scheduled for June 17, 2002. Pr/or to that date, the planner and Bohlman spoke by phone. Bohlman indicated the plans were not ready, but he suggested that the hear/ng be conducted "tonight to get it out of the way." The planner cautioned Bohl_man that the hearing should be de- layed until August so that the plans could be completed and examined. Bohiman objected, explaining that a delay could jeopardize the project. In a letter, he stated, "[P]lease continue consideration of our pending requests for rezorfing and preliminary plat approval to the next earliest possible date with the city COUnCil." The hearing was conducted on June i7, 2002, and no representative of the developer was present. The planner told the council the developer had requested a continuance, but did not say that the developer wanted the matter decided as soon as possible. The council voted to continue the rezoning request on July 15, 2002. On July 15, 2002, the developer's attorney presented a letter to the council. stating his ftrm believed that the 60-day period expired on the zoning applica- tion, thus automatically approving the application by state statute effective June 29, 2002. The city council voted to deny the rezoning. On Aug. 19, 2002, the city council also voted to deny approval of the developer's preliminary plat be- cause the request for rezonmg had been den/ed. A number of stated reasons for denial were cited. The developer sued, seeking an order to issue the rezoning and damages. The lower court rejected the developer's claim that the rezon/ng request was automatically approved because the city failed to act on it within 60 .days. The court stated the 60-day period should run from May 15, the date the re- quest was amended. Summary. judgment was awarded to the city, and the de- veloper appealed. DECISION: z~ed. The zoning change was not automatically approved.